The Wartime Decline of Habeas Corpus nsfxian

[tricky]

If anyone cares to read a short (5 page) paper I wrote on this....hit me up.

[PETA]

why bother with 5 pages?

State your thesis in one sentence. If you are unable to do so that means you have not sufficiently organized and reduced the topic to a point which is worth reading.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

why bother with 5 pages?

State your thesis in one sentence. If you are unable to do so that means you have not sufficiently organized and reduced the topic to a point which is worth reading.

lol. i have a thesis and then i expand on it

Essay Writing 101.

thanks

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

why bother with 5 pages?

State your thesis in one sentence. If you are unable to do so that means you have not sufficiently organized and reduced the topic to a point which is worth reading.

Would you like me to define hypocrisy for you, Captain Wordy ExpoundsAlot?

[tricky]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Would you like me to define hypocrisy for you, Captain Wordy ExpoundsAlot?

it's like he bills by the word

[PETA]

congratulation - what a brave fellow you are in declining to post that sentence

chicken shit 101

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Would you like me to define hypocrisy for you, Captain Wordy ExpoundsAlot?

lol - my professional writing is remarkably concise, to the point of making any sane reader nod off quite nearly instantneously... I should fucking market it as a damn sleep aid

[tricky]

I wrote a paper that I'm sure you're going to disagree with. However, some out there actually know the difference between the constitution and a piece of toilet paper. This paper is for those people.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

I wrote a paper that I'm sure you're going to disagree with. However, some out there actually know the difference between the constitution and a piece of toilet paper. This paper is for those people.

Indeed, your legal mind a truly a sight to... well... to refuse to put out there for criticism. Bravo.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

Indeed, your legal mind a truly a sight to... well... to refuse to put out there for criticism. Bravo.

lol

what sentence did i not post?

It's not like you'd read it anyways, anything longer than a paragraph turns you off.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

lol

what sentence did i not post?

It's not like you'd read it anyways, anything longer than a paragraph turns you off.

Your thesis statement.

Yes, I quickly abandon reading garbage; it does not take long to make that determination.

[tricky]

The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus has historically come under attack during times of war. The two most egregious examples are both quite recent. During World War II, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066. This order led to the internment of over 112,000 Americans based solely on their Japanese heritage (Robinson, By Order 108). The ongoing “War on Terror” has led to the labeling of many prisoners not even captured by Coalition troops as “unlawful enemy combatants” and subject to indefinite imprisonment in places such as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Pfiffner states that, “Only 5% of the detainees in Guantanamo were actually taken into custody directly by U.S. troops (85).” This further highlights how important it is to make sure all prisoners have a hearing to determine their status since we do not even know who most are.

there

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus has historically come under attack during times of war. The two most egregious examples are both quite recent. During World War II, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066. This order led to the internment of over 112,000 Americans based solely on their Japanese heritage (Robinson, By Order 108). The ongoing “War on Terror” has led to the labeling of many prisoners not even captured by Coalition troops as “unlawful enemy combatants” and subject to indefinite imprisonment in places such as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Pfiffner states that, “Only 5% of the detainees in Guantanamo were actually taken into custody directly by U.S. troops (85).” This further highlights how important it is to make sure all prisoners have a hearing to determine their status since we do not even know who most are.

there

That's not a thesis statement..... it's a paragraph of jumbled facts and editorial comments.


The Great Writ, being of great concern to the liberty of all, should not be denied the Gitmo detainees.


That's a thesis staement.

[tricky]

My thesis is that the writ is under attack during wartime. I go on to discuss WWII and the legal decisions concerning the guantanamo bay detainees. That's the first paragraph. I know the entire thing isn't the thesis statement. I only included it to add some insight to the paper which you have decided to shoot down.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

My thesis is that the writ is under attack during wartime. I go on to discuss WWII and the legal decisions concerning the guantanamo bay detainees. That's the first paragraph. I know the entire thing isn't the thesis statement. I only included it to add some insight to the paper which you have decided to shoot down.

I didn't shoot down a paper. I said that the paragraph you posted was without a thesis statement and then I offered one derrived from your paragraph.


But knowing what/how you think... one hole in your comments is the presumption that habeus applies to people captured outside the United States. To follow your line of reasoning every Nazi soldier, every NVA soldier, ever North Korean soldier etc etc captured on the battle field and held by US troops should be granted habeus rights and we know that's absurd.... just as Boumendiene is...

[tricky]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

I didn't shoot down a paper. I said that the paragraph you posted was without a thesis statement and then I offered one derrived from your paragraph.


But knowing what/how you think... one hole in your comments is the presumption that habeus applies to people captured outsied the united states. To follow your line of reasoning every Nazi soldier, every NVA soldier, ever North Korean soldier etc etc captuired on the battle field should be granted habeus rights and we know that's absurd.... just as Boumendiene is...

My theory is that the "war on terror" is an indefinite battle without clear boundaries or an end goal (besides stopping terrorist). This is not a simple nation v. nation battle that can be resolved easily. These are nonstate actors acting with and without state sponsorship across the globe in unclear capacities. It can not be simply compared to nazis, nva, etc. Those were clearly nation v nation conflicts.